SJC announces inquiry into jury-waived OUI conviction rates

In the wake of a Boston Globe investigation into OUI conviction rates in jury-waived District Court trials, the Supreme Judicial Court has commissioned Boston lawyer R. “Jack” Cinquegrana to conduct a “confidential and independent preliminary inquiry” into the matter, the court said in a statement issued this afternoon.

Cinquegrana, a Choate, Hall & Stewart attorney and former Boston Bar Association president, was asked to start his inquiry several weeks ago when the SJC learned about The Globe investigation. Chief Justice for Administration & Management Robert A. Mulligan, District Court Chief Justice Lynda M. Connolly and Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice Charles R. Johnson have been “fully supportive” of Cinquegrana’s role, according to the SJC.

“It should be underscored that this is a preliminary, fact-finding inquiry, not a disciplinary inquiry, and does not reflect any prejudgment by the Justices as to information contained in the Boston Globe article,” the press release stated.

In addition Massachusetts Judges Conference President James G. Collins, a Holyoke Juvenile Court judge, issued a statement noting that “76% of all prosecutions for drunk driving result in convictions or admissions thereby resulting in the statutorily mandated punishments. In 11% of the cases the defendant is found not guilty by a jury or a judge.” The full statement can be read below.

Drunk driving is a very serious offense that often has devastating consequences in terms of the loss of innocent life, serious injuries, and grave harm to innocent families. The Massachusetts Judges Conference (MJC) supports the strict enforcement of our laws against drunk driving. In Massachusetts, 76% of all prosecutions for drunk driving result in convictions or admissions thereby resulting in the statutorily mandated punishments. In 11% of the cases the defendant is found not guilty by a jury or a judge. These statistics mean that a citizen charged with drunk driving in Massachusetts has a 1 in 10 chance of being found not guilty.

The MJC respects the hard-working police officers who make judgment calls about whether there is probable cause to arrest a person for drunk driving. However, probable cause is not sufficient to prove guilt under the law. Trial judges are bound by their oath and the Constitution to follow the law which provides that a probability, even a “strong probability” of guilt is not enough to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the law in Massachusetts is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a qualitative judgment about the evidence. Any attempt to quantify proof beyond a reasonable doubt changes the nature of the legal concept. The Supreme Judicial Court, the highest Court in the Commonwealth, has said that proof beyond a reasonable doubt demands that judges and juries seek an “abiding conviction to a moral certainty” that the charge is true rather than any statistical probability. This means that the judge or the jury must assess the credibility of witnesses. The United States Supreme Court has described the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as requiring a subjective state of near certitude.

When a judge conducts a trial without a jury, in accordance with our law, and after making appropriate rulings about the admissibility of the evidence, weighs that evidence in accordance with the same standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required in a trial before a jury, the result of that trial is entitled to the same respect as the result of a jury trial. Each citizen who comes to court charged with a crime, whether tried before a judge or a jury, deserves to be treated as an individual and to have his or her guilt or innocence determined on the basis of the facts and the law, and not on the basis of anyone’s scorecard about what percentage of the cases should be guilty versus not guilty.

One comment

Let’s look at this agenda driven article carefully using the Globe’s own figures. First they quote a Northborough Police Chief as saying that the police are not wrong 85% of the time. He acknowledges that there could be a couple of instances but not 85%.
Then they say that there are 17K oui arrests a year. Of that there are 1000 jury waived trials. From the 1000 cases 85-86% acquittal rate. That means 850 or 860 of the thousand get acquitted. If you divide 850 by 17000, the figure equates to .05%.
With the new law of .08 BAC the majority of cases are pleas so that people can get their license back. The legislative intent to force pleas is working.
Ironically if there are 425 BT machines in the state and the NPD Chief says they could be wrong once or twice a year then multiply 425 by 2 and you get 850 cases, an interesting number.
The fact is that the Judiciary has been sworn to take an oath to uphold the constitution. The Globe’s intent to set an agenda to pressure the Judiciary is outrageous.
The Judiciary is working under some of the worst conditions in years. No new hires since October 2008. Their probation and clerk’s offices have been decimated. They are forced to move cases under the time standards employed by the trial court. A Jury trial takes twice as long as a bench trial. If there is discreet issues of law on say a Leonard or Forde issue, which is a case that the Judge would comprehend more easily than a half a dozen hairdressers and plumbers. They general public and the uneducated masses will read these articles and think the Judiciary is corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that there are Judges who are down the middle, some left and some right, but on balance we are fortunate to have a strong team of committed women and men who have elected to make a financial and personal sacrifice to lead our court system.
Shame on the Globe and the instigator who feed the biased information to the Globe.
Marty Kane